No performance-based pay for 2011 season

Posted by Mike Florio on February 18, 2012, 12:02 PM EST

Getty Images

When the salary cap disappeared in 2010, another key component of player compensation evaporated as well.

The performance-based pay system, which primarily rewarded low-salary players who participated in a high number of snaps, was one of the various benefits that, according to the terms of the last CBA, didn’t exist in the final year of the contract.

The good news is that performance-based pay has returned to the new CBA. It’s right there, in Article 28. Titled “Performance-Based Pool.”

But Section 1 tells us everything we need to know about whether performance-based pay will return in 2011: It won’t. The first line says that the fund shall be created “[i]n each year League Year after the 2011 League Year.”

Mike Garafolo of the Newark Star-Ledger reports that the NFLPA has confirmed the absence of the performance-based pay system for the 2011 season. As Garafolo points out, this means that minimum-salary youngsters like Giants receiver Victor Cruz (left) won’t get any extra money based on appearing in most of the snaps in most of the games.

And while NFLPA spokesman Carl Francis tells Garafolo that the language regarding the application of the performance-based pay system for future years is still being negotiated, the CBA seems to be clear. According to Article 28, Section 2, the 2012 fund will be $3.46 million per team, with a maximum upward adjustment each year of five percent.

The NFLPA also has the unilateral right to reduce or free the amount each year, given that the performance-based pool represents money that otherwise would be available to each team under the salary cap.

I see no reason why the Giants should be in such salary cap trouble. Aside from Manning inking a huge deal a few years ago, who else on this team is making huge dollars?

Tuck never signed a huge deal, Osi is crying about his money, Nicks is on his rookie deal and wasn’t a top 10 guy, same with JPP.

They didn’t have the money to bring back Smith or Boss last year and they won’t have any money to pay Cruz this year. Without looking for their salary cap numbers, this makes no sense at all. Not even the offensive line is what it was a few years ago.

Reese has done a great job finding talent and Coughlin has done an amazing job coaching them up but Reese leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to manipulating the cap.

Doesn’t it make sense for all contracts to be performanced based, that seems like it could stop people from not giving a 100% after a large contract

dirtmcgirt24 says:Feb 18, 2012 12:24 PM

Reese doesn’t do well managing the cap? Fielding .500 and up teams for the last 7 years without having any cap casualties essentially ever? Smith was injured and wanted to get paid. You saw how well he did.

Guys like Canty, Webster, Rolle, etc, you know , guys who just brought you a title? Turns out they make a lot of money.

packernation90 says: Doesn’t it make sense for all contracts to be performanced based, that seems like it could stop people from not giving a 100% after a large contract

Even if you think that’s a good idea, how can one objectively evaluate performance and then translate that into dollars?

I ask that question rhetorically- there isn’t a way.

1captain1 says:Feb 18, 2012 12:41 PM

Tebow got some serious bling for the play-offs.

Performance based baby.

bsizemore68 says:Feb 18, 2012 12:45 PM

The big problem is when a player has a sorry performance there is no way to cut his pay for lack of production, however when they have a good year they want a pay raised, seems like it is a one way street. Bill p.s. And I don’t think they are being over paid, can’t help it if a team throws money at them, the new rookie pay deal is the best thing to help spread the money around to all players.

bsizemore68 says: The big problem is when a player has a sorry performance there is no way to cut his pay for lack of production, however when they have a good year they want a pay raised, seems like it is a one way street.

That’s totally ridiculous.

It’s a one way street alright- if a team feels a player isn’t producing enough to justify the money, the team just cuts the player.

If a player is outperforming his contract, the player is stuck.

shlort says:Feb 18, 2012 1:02 PM

1captain1 , Tebow had it written ito hiss own contract, wasnt in the CBA for him.

tommyf15, It could work if it were based on stats and starts. how about every 100 yards is worth an extra 10,000 dollars on top of the contract. Touchdownss could be worth 20 grand. catches are 1000 dollars each. Examples of course, but everyone would be equal and the best perormers would make the most money.

Problem there is some players would even be bigger arseholes about not getting enough touches and the divas would run wild.

If the players want to get paid extra for doing good things for the team then it would only be fair to implement a new rule to deduct from a player’s weekly paycheck for every penalty they commit in the week’s game. The money could be donated to a charity.

Players earning the league minimum salary could be inclined to translate the ‘no performance based pay’ to ‘no possible monetary reward for my extra effort. Subsequently, the only possible source of extra income would be to get a second job. It really must be hard for a player to earn the league minimum $385,000/year with no bonus pay for consistently doing your job. In my line of work, the worker maybe gets a smile, handshake or a donut on their desk. It’s never enough these days…

ruggyup says:Feb 18, 2012 1:24 PM

So, with no 2011 Performance Based Pay the players find themselves in a Teacher’s Union.
What do you do for a living son. I am an NFL teacher substitute. Pathetic.

babyjesus69 says:Feb 18, 2012 1:24 PM

NFL just have performance based contracts only!? UNLESS those contracts are guaranteed I say no. NFL is one sport where you can get cut with the owners owing the players nothing. NFL careers are so short anyways. It’s not like baseball or basketball where performance based contracts are sorely needed. See Barry Zito

tigerlilac says:Feb 18, 2012 1:33 PM

lunarpie, I doubt you are at the absolute pinnacle of a profession that is so exclusive that there are about 2,000 people in the pool of workers at any one time.

Nor do I suspect that you had to train for four to eight years to prepare for a profession where most professionals last only three to five years.

They are not watching you, you choose to watch them. If you are so offended by their compensation find other entertainment.

lunarpie says: In my line of work, the worker maybe gets a smile, handshake or a donut on their desk. It’s never enough these days…

I’m attacking the post, not the poster here.

There’s probably nothing I hate more than someone whining about players based on their crappy jobs with the “well, in my line of work” nonsense.

If you don’t like your line of work, by all means, become a professional football player. Do it now, today. Take Victor Cruz’s job, enjoy that $385,000 a year, and glow in your appreciation of it.

What are you waiting for?

sunlion333 says:Feb 18, 2012 1:46 PM

nxsteven says:”I see no reason why the Giants should be in such salary cap trouble.”/”Reese has done a great job finding talent and Coughlin has done an amazing job coaching them up but Reese leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to manipulating the cap.”

Well, you can’t see much if you’re not looking. FYI the cap was reduce from $128Mil to $120Mil from 2010 to 2011. If you can find some other evidence to what you claim about JR’s mismanagement of the cap, please bring it. Otherwise, you’re just spouting nonsense. Players that improve or prove their worth, get increases in pay moving fromn their rookie contracts to their 2nd contract as a rule. Being a team that is so good at drafting is it’s own curse in the fact that you have so many up for raises.

Also, there is no cap increase(which, BTW, is the mechanism that helps teams keep players due for increases) from 2011 to 2012, so the cap is working against the more successful teams, regardless of their previous mastery of payroll limits. This “roll-over” of unused cap money from one year to the next was designed to increase league wide competition, but will destroy any team that capitalizes on the extra funds when they face the cap the folowing year with a bloated payroll.

lunarpie says: If the players want to get paid extra for doing good things for the team then it would only be fair to implement a new rule to deduct from a player’s weekly paycheck for every penalty they commit in the week’s game. The money could be donated to a charity

Another bad idea.

For example, you’d have offensive linemen having to choose between holding a rushing linebacker (maybe saving a play, definitely saving the QB) and losing money.

Most penalties are a result of a player making an extra effort to try to win.

rajbais says:Feb 18, 2012 1:51 PM

Nice job De Smith!!!!

Thanks for messing the deal up for the players!!!!

EJ says:Feb 18, 2012 2:07 PM

I thought the performance based pay was a good idea. It made sure that those players with the option would put in 110%. What else are they going to strip from the game?

gadgetdawg says:Feb 18, 2012 2:36 PM

lunarpie, I doubt you are at the absolute pinnacle of a profession that is so exclusive that there are about 2,000 people in the pool of workers at any one time.

Nor do I suspect that you had to train for four to eight years to prepare for a profession where most professionals last only three to five years.
—————————————

Olympic athletes and college players seem to get by just fine on far less.

Personally I’d prefer to see a rule that limits multi-year contracts to just a couple per team. I’d much prefer that the majority of NFL contacts be year to year. I feel that would be an incentive to both the players to maximize their performance and the teams to build in both incentives and penalties.

gadgetdawg says: Olympic athletes and college players seem to get by just fine on far less.

College players “get by”?

I’m trying to think of a nice way of telling this person that they don’t know what they’re talking about.

Personally I’d prefer to see a rule that limits multi-year contracts to just a couple per team. I’d much prefer that the majority of NFL contacts be year to year. I feel that would be an incentive to both the players to maximize their performance and the teams to build in both incentives and penalties.

It’s the owners that want longer contracts.

I just see a lot of solutions looking for a problem here. Player effort is not an issue in the NFL.

thingamajig says:Feb 18, 2012 4:39 PM

ruggyup: So, with no 2011 Performance Based Pay the players find themselves in a Teacher’s Union.

Unions don’t include performance based pay, it’s all based on job classification and seniority. Perform better than expectations and your peers will tell you to slow down.

tigerlilac says:Feb 18, 2012 6:12 PM

thingamajig, there are plenty of problems with unions, including the teachers’ unions, but if you want to look for real waste in schools you will find it in the school administrations. Nor is the lack of a work ethic to be found on the field in the NFL. It is ownership that is bogged down by nepotism and slackers.

While you are at it, read Jeremy Brecher’s “Strike!” or Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” to get a reality check about what unions did to benefit workers. If you now, or ever, enjoyed a 40-hour work week, an 8-hour day, days off on a weekend (to watch the NFL), vacation days, sick leave or safe working conditions it is liklely you owe to a debt of gratitude to unions. Don’t forget, it was union members that went into the “Twin Towers” back on September 11, 2001 to save lives while sacrificing their own.

The government has absolutely no right to indoctrinate our children into knowledge that clearly is setting them onto the wrong path. I am fed up with communism being passed off as something that is not communism, and you really need to learn about what exactly is the purpose behind public education.

Don’t forget it was the CIA and the intelligence communities of the world who coordinated the 9/11 attacks, all the while using their drug dollars to fund this subversion of the government of the unlawful UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.